The role of self-efficacy and locus of control in asthma-related needs and outcomes: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Objective: This study sought to identify psychological resources, which are associated with improved asthma outcomes. Methods: A total of 205 patients who reported physician-diagnosed asthma were surveyed between September 2017 and March 2018. Psychological resources included self-efficacy (i.e. the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute required behavior [SE]; assessed by the Short Scale for Measuring General Self-Efficacy Beliefs), and internal and external locus of control (i.e. one’s beliefs about whether a given event is the result of one’s behavior or of forces outside one’s control [LoC]; Scale for Internal External Locus of Control-4). Outcome variables included asthma control (Asthma Control Test), asthma-related quality of life (QoL; Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire-Sydney) and patient needs (Patient Needs in Asthma Treatment Questionnaire). Associations were estimated by linear regressions. Results: We observed that higher self-efficacy and internal LoC scores, but lower scores on the external LoC subscale were associated with improved asthma control (SE: β = 0.19, p = 0.01; internal LoC: β = 0.17, p = 0.02; external LoC: β = −0.18, p = 0.01), better asthma-related QoL (SE: β = −0.38, p < 0.01; internal LoC: β = −0.40, p < 0.01; external LoC: β = 0.46, p < 0.01) and less unmet needs (SE: β = −0.16, p = 0.02; internal LoC: β = −0.18, p < .01; external LoC: β = 0.32, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Our study provides novel evidence on psychological resources among patients with asthma, which are associated with improved asthma outcomes.

Keywords:

• Asthma
• internal-external control
• needs
• self-efficacy
• quality of life

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Additional information

Funding

This study draws on data from a project funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grant number: LO 1730/2–3). The funder had no say related to the study design, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.